August 17, 2026
James C. Bodie, Intake Counsel
Virginia State Bar Association
1111 East Main Street, Suite 700
Richmond, Virginia 23219-0026
FROM: Valerie Gagnon
511 Princess Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
RE: Second Complaint Against Foster Samuel Burton Friedman — New Evidence Not Available at Time of First Complaint
Dear Mr. Bodie:
I had not been provided with a copy of the GG Trust when I filed my first complaint. I have since obtained it. What it contains compels me to file this second complaint, which is distinct from and independent of the first.
This complaint concerns the Gaetane R. Gagnon Irrevocable Trust (the “GG Trust”), drafted by attorney Foster Samuel Burton Friedman for my mother, Gaetane R. Gagnon. The provisions of the GG Trust, as now available to me, raise serious concerns about conflicts of interest, improper self-dealing, and violations of Virginia law and the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. These concerns are separate from those raised in my first complaint because they depend on language in the trust instrument that I had not previously seen.
1. SELF-NOTARIZATION IN VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CODE § 47.1-14
Foster S.B. Friedman drafted the GG Trust. Within that same document, he named himself “Trust Protector,” a role that gives him unilateral power to modify the trust, remove the trustee, and direct distribution of a $4,000,000 estate. He then notarized the GG Trust himself.
Virginia Code § 47.1-14 prohibits a notary from notarizing a document in which the notary holds a direct beneficial interest. By naming himself Trust Protector with broad control over trust administration and distributions, and with a right to receive fees from the estate, Mr. Friedman holds a direct beneficial interest in the GG Trust. His act of notarizing the same instrument in which he created and granted himself these powers appears to be an instance of self-notarization barred by § 47.1-14.
Because Mr. Friedman notarized his own instrument, there was no independent notarial witness to verify that my mother, Gaetane R. Gagnon, understood what she was signing. After reviewing the GG Trust, Quebec criminal attorney Olivier Morin, Esq. identified six specific ways in which my mother was misled or not accurately informed about the trust’s contents and legal effects. Mr. Morin’s letter, dated October 24, 2025, is attached as Exhibit B. It documents the discrepancy between what my mother believed she was signing and the powers and structures actually created by the trust as drafted and notarized by Mr. Friedman.
I request that the Virginia State Bar determine whether Mr. Friedman’s self-notarization of a trust instrument in which he holds a direct beneficial interest, by virtue of his role as Trust Protector, constitutes a violation of Virginia Code § 47.1-14 and related ethical obligations governing attorney conduct.
2. THE TRUST PROTECTOR LOOPHOLE — IS THIS LEGAL UNDER VIRGINIA LAW?
The GG Trust contains a provision naming Mr. Friedman as Trust Protector with powers that include: (i) the unilateral right to modify any term of the trust; (ii) the power to remove and replace the trustee; and (iii) the power to direct the distribution of trust assets. Mr. Friedman is the attorney who drafted the trust. He collected legal fees for drafting the instrument. He now collects trustee-related fees in connection with administering the trust. At the same time, he retains Trust Protector powers over the $4,000,000 estate and over the actions of the co-trustee, Burke & Herbert Bank and Trust, Alexandria, Virginia.
In effect, Mr. Friedman created for himself a controlling role over the trust structure and its administration, while also serving as the drafting attorney and a paid fiduciary. This convergence of roles appears to raise serious conflict-of-interest concerns under the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, including:
- Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule): Whether Mr. Friedman’s personal financial interest in ongoing fees and his unilateral control powers materially limit his ability to provide independent, loyal advice to the settlor and to act in the best interests of the sole beneficiary, Valerie Gagnon.
- Rule 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions): Whether drafting a trust instrument that grants the drafting lawyer broad unilateral powers and fee-generating authority over a client’s $4,000,000 estate constitutes an impermissible transaction with a client or an improper acquisition of a pecuniary interest adverse to the client or beneficiary.
The GG Trust, as drafted, places Mr. Friedman in a position where his own powers and compensation are potentially at odds with the beneficiary’s interests. His ability to modify terms, remove the trustee, and direct distributions allows him to influence both the structure and implementation of the trust in ways that may primarily benefit himself. The Bar’s guidance is needed on whether this configuration complies with Rules 1.7 and 1.8 and with Virginia trust and fiduciary law.
I therefore ask the Virginia State Bar to determine whether an attorney in Virginia may, consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct, draft a trust instrument, collect fees as drafting counsel, and then name himself Trust Protector with unilateral modification powers and control over distributions in a multimillion-dollar estate, while also participating in trustee-level compensation.
3. THE NO-CONTEST CLAUSE AS A CONFLICT SHIELD
Article XV of the GG Trust contains a no-contest clause that strips any beneficiary of their entire inheritance if they challenge any provision of the trust in court. The attorney who drafted that clause is the same person who benefits from it remaining unchallenged: Mr. Friedman, the drafting attorney, paid fiduciary, and Trust Protector with unilateral powers over the trust.
There is one sole beneficiary of the GG Trust: myself, Valerie Gagnon. I am currently being denied $133,000 in mandatory trust distributions and am facing the forced sale of my primary residence, which is trust property. If I challenge these actions in court, the no-contest clause drafted by Mr. Friedman threatens me with forfeiture of my entire inheritance. As drafted and applied, the clause functions to deter any judicial review not only of the trust provisions but also of Mr. Friedman’s own conduct in creating, interpreting, and administering the GG Trust.
The question for the Bar is whether an attorney may draft and implement a no-contest clause that operates primarily as a shield against scrutiny of that attorney’s own conflicted role and conduct. The combination of: (i) Mr. Friedman’s self-created Trust Protector powers; (ii) his ongoing financial interest in fees; and (iii) his use of a no-contest clause that deters the sole beneficiary from seeking relief in court, raises serious concerns about abuse of the attorney-client relationship and evasion of accountability.
I ask the Virginia State Bar to evaluate whether drafting and enforcing such a no-contest clause, under these specific circumstances, is consistent with the attorney’s duties of loyalty, honesty, and fairness to the client and beneficiary under the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, including but not limited to Rules 1.7, 1.8, and 8.4 (Misconduct).
The GG Trust is attached as Exhibit A. The Morin letter is attached as Exhibit B. The Virginia State Bar's response to my first complaint, dated August 6, 2025 and signed by James C. Bodie, is attached as Exhibit C. I respectfully request that this second complaint be reviewed on its own merits, as it raises violations that were not and could not have been raised in my first complaint.
Sincerely,
Valerie Gagnon
511 Princess Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
valerieanne.gagnon@gmail.com
NOTICE — FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE ON THE PUBLIC RECORD
On August 23, 2026, a formal letter was delivered to City Attorney Cheran C. Ivery of Alexandria, Virginia, demanding: (1) the immediate withdrawal of the arrest warrant against Valerie Gagnon; and (2) full production of APS file W023408-050124.
The individuals documented on this page had every means and standing to inform the City Attorney’s office of the facts set out here. The question the public record now forces is not whether the City Attorney was uninformed — but what he was told, by whom, and when.
The City of Alexandria has 90 days from August 23, 2026 to respond. Failure to do so will result in escalation to the Virginia State Bar, the Virginia FOIA Advisory Council, and the United States Department of Justice.
Read the full letter on the public record →
Leave a comment